logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.08 2015가합19242
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant is a company that undertaken a new project to build E Apartment 101 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) on the land and three lots of Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-do, and Gangwon-do.

B. On April 18, 2011, the Defendant purchased the instant apartment and its site that a Asian Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Asian Trust”) was entrusted by the Intervenor joining the Defendant through the public auction procedure, and on the same day after completing the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant on June 23, 2011, the instant apartment and the instant site were entrusted to the Asian Trust and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Asian Trust.

C. At the time of conclusion of the sales contract on the instant apartment and site, the Defendant contracted the remainder of the construction of the instant apartment to the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant, on June 9, 2011, contracted to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “F”) the instant new apartment construction work with the cost of construction KRW 390 million and the construction period from June 9, 201 to August 30, 2011.

At the time of the conclusion of the above contract, the Intervenor and F set forth the special condition of the contract that “The payment for the construction cost shall be made within 20 days after the completion of the contract and the contract for sale in cash shall be recovered at the time of cash payment.”

E. After the conclusion of the above contract, the Intervenor agreed to sell the instant apartment units Nos. 203, 304, and 306 to the Plaintiff, the representative director of F, as payment for the instant construction cost obligation. On June 15, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Plaintiff for the sale of the instant apartment units Nos. 203, 304, and 306 on October 13, 201 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant first sale contract”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10-1 through 3.

arrow